Biden administration sitting on $1 trillion in unspent COVID-19 relief funds

From Washington Examiner.com (Feb. 10, 2021):

Before the Biden administration takes another $1.9 trillion out of the nation’s wallet for COVID-19 relief, fiscal hawks are urging the White House to first spent about $1 trillion in unspent previously approved virus money.

According to a Republican Study Committee tally, $4 trillion has already been appropriated for relief, and Biden’s plan would grow that 50%, an amount even GOP supporters of a big coronavirus package call too rich.

The government is sitting on about $1 trillion in unspent money. House leaders have asked the administration to identify that funding, but so far, the White House has refused.

“Unfortunately, the only ones who have those details are in the Biden administration, but they’re being tight-lipped,” said a GOP source.

That lack of transparency is just one of several issues dogging the new president and his team as they slowly get a vaccine out and try to deliver economic help to the ailing public.

What’s been delivered so far is an impressive list that has kept many afloat. The list from the RSC, chaired by Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, is based on an analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and includes:

• Direct aid to households: $1.29 trillion

— Unemployment insurance: $586 billion — Stimulus checks: $458 billion
— Rental assistance: $25 billion
— Testing and hospital visits: $13.6 billion

• Small business loans: $1.27 trillion

— PPP funds: $828 billion — 5.2 million businesses received loans

• State and local governments: $578 billion

— Law enforcement assistance: $848 million — Firefighters grants: $100 million
— Healthcare: $178 billion in grants to health providers
— Funding for pharmaceutical companies: $33.3 billion

• Vaccine rollout: $8.75 billion

• Education: $112.7 billion

— K-12: $68 billion — Higher education: $36.6 billion [source]

US to Relist Houthis as Specially Designated Global Terrorists: AP

From NewsMax.com (Jan. 16):

The Biden administration is expected to soon announce plans to redesignate Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen as specially designated global terrorists, according to two people familiar with the White House decision and a U.S. official.

The move comes as the Houthis have launched dozens of attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea. The group says it has attacked the ships in response to Israel's military operations in Gaza in the aftermath of Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

The three people familiar with the decision were not authorized to comment and requested anonymity to discuss the matter ahead of the expected formal announcement. The administration is expected to make the announcement on Wednesday, the U.S. official said.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken delisted the Houthis as both foreign terrorist organizations and as specially designated global terrorists in February 2021 as the administration sought to make it easier to get humanitarian aid into Yemen.

In its waning days, the Trump administration designated the Houthis a Foreign Terrorist Organization over the strong objections of human rights and humanitarian aid groups.

The foreign terrorist designation barred Americans and people and organizations subject to U.S. jurisdiction from providing “material support” to the Houthis, which the groups said would result in an even greater humanitarian catastrophe than what was already happening in Yemen.

Shortly after the Biden administration took office, Blinken removed the designations in a step that was roundly criticized by conservative lawmakers and others but was intended to keep much-needed food, medicine and other aid flowing to Yemen.

The specially designated global terrorists label to be reimposed on the Houthis does not include sanctions for providing “material support” and it does not come with travel bans that are also imposed with the FTO label. Thus, it may not pose a substantial impediment to providing aid to Yemeni civilians.

Meanwhile, a senior White House official said Tuesday that addressing the ongoing threat by Yemen’s Houthi rebels on commercial vessels in the Red Sea is an “all hands on deck” problem that the U.S. and allies must address together to minimize impact on the global economy.

“How long this goes on and how bad it gets comes down not just to the decisions of the countries in the coalition that took strikes last week,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said during an appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. [read more]

That's good, I guess. Then again President Trump had already designated the Houthis as global terrorists, then Briben reversed that decision. Now, he has reversed his own decision. If Briben doesn't once and for all destroy the Houthis they will keep on causing terror.

10 Notes on the End of Affirmative Action

From colemanhughes.substack.com (June 29, 2023):

In a landmark decision handed down today, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of race in college admissions violates the 14th amendment––effectively ending “Affirmative Action” overnight. For some, this is a shocking step backwards. For others, it’s a long overdue endorsement of color-blindness and non-discrimination.

I am in the latter camp. I think “Affirmative Action” is a misguided, discriminatory policy whose end is long overdue. But I know many intelligent and well-meaning people who disagree. In the coming weeks, I expect many media outlets to push an alarmist viewpoint that we have dialed the clock back to the days of Jim Crow. So I’d like to lay out, as clearly as possible, my reasons for believing that this decision is a net good for American society.

1. “Affirmative Action” is a Euphemism for Racial Discrimination

We use euphemisms to hide ugly realities. During the War On Terror, for example, the phrase “enhanced interrogation” was used instead of “torture.” Whereas “torture” calls to mind hellish dungeons and blood-curdling screams––realities the public might not support––“enhanced interrogation” calls to mind…well, nothing in particular. That’s the point.

“Affirmative Action” is a euphemism too. If you didn’t know what it meant, you would never guess that it referred to a policy of racial discrimination against certain people (whites and Asians), and racial preferences for others (blacks and Hispanics).

Do “discrimination” and “preferences” sound too harsh? Isn’t race just used as a “tie-breaker” between otherwise identical applicants?

Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade studied a representative sample of elite colleges and found that when other factors were held equal, Asians and whites had to score 450 and 310 SAT points higher than black applicants, respectively, to have the same odds of being admitted. (Espenshade, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, chapter 3).

Harvard’s 2013 internal memo found that if they ended “Affirmative Action”, the number of Asian-American students would more than double, comprising 43 percent of the student body. That doesn’t sound like a tie-breaker to me. If the shoe were on the other foot––if black and Hispanic kids were at a disadvantage equal to hundreds of SAT points––no one would be tempted to dismiss it as “small.”

What goes on in admissions offices is shrouded in secrecy. If it were shown openly, it would seem ugly and racist. Here, for instance, is an actual conversation (revealed in the lawsuit) between admissions officers at UNC:

“I just opened a brown girl who’s an 810 [SAT].”

“If its brown and above a 1300 [SAT] put them in for [the] merit/Excel [scholarship].”

“Still yes, give these brown babies a shot at these merit $$.”

“I am reading an Am. Ind.”

“[W]ith these [URM] kids, I’m trying to at least give them the chance to compete even if the [extracurriculars] and essays are just average.”

“I don’t think I can admit or defer this brown girl.”

“perfect 2400 SAT All 5 on AP one B in 11th”

“Brown?!”

“Heck no. Asian.”

“Of course. Still impressive.”

“I just read a blk girl who is an MC and Park nominee.”....

“Stellar academics for a Native Amer/African Amer kid.”....

“I’m going through this trouble because this is a bi-racial (black/white) male.”

“Holistic admissions” is a propaganda phrase. Here’s the reality: racial identity––a fact which no one chooses about themselves––is the but-for cause of admission and rejection for a significant portion of American students applying to elite colleges.

Imagine if every college rejection letter contained an honest account of why every kid was rejected. Imagine, for example, if the Asian-American kid who would have gotten into Harvard were she not Asian received an honest statement attesting to that fact in her rejection letter: “We regret to inform you that you’ve been rejected in part because you are Asian-American. Had you been black or Hispanic with otherwise identical qualifications, we would have accepted you.”

How long would “Affirmative Action” survive in this scenario? If your intuition is “not very long” (that is mine), then what does it tell you that secrecy is the main reason “Affirmative Action” survived as long as it did? 

Sadly, euphemisms work. They shape public opinion. Consider the results of two surveys about college admissions. Pew asked: “Do you think race/ethnicity should be a major factor, minor factor, or not a factor in college admissions?” 73 percent of Americans said race/ethnicity should not be a factor in college admissions at all, including a majority of black respondents.

But the same year, Gallup asked: “Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities?” And 61 percent of respondents said “yes”.

How can that be? How can majorities both support and oppose racial preferences?

The key is how you ask the question. When you ask people if they support “Affirmative Action,” they’ll say “yes.” But if you instead ask the same question using a straightforward definition of “Affirmative Action”–– like “using race as a factor in college admissions”––those same people will say “no”. That’s the power of euphemism. (I’m sure “enhanced interrogation” polled better than “torture” too.)

“Affirmative Action” may be popular. But the underlying reality it represents––racial discrimination and preferences––is unpopular with Americans of all races. [read more]

The other notes:

1. “Affirmative Action” Affects the Elites, Not the Masses. By Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade’s estimate, in any given year, only 1 percent of black and Hispanic 18-year olds get into a college as a result of racial preferences. The other 99 percent either don’t go to college at all or don’t go to colleges selective enough to “need” racial preferences. Schools with acceptance rates over 50% generally don’t use affirmative action.
2. The Benefits of “Affirmative Action” are Dubious
3. Mismatch is Real. Affirmative Action has negative side effects even for those students it is intended to help.
4. “Affirmative Action” is Not the Product of The Civil Rights Movement
5. Quotas are a Red herring. Ever since the Bakke decision in 1978, racial quotas have been illegal. Schools have been able to “take race into account”––i.e. discriminate––as long as they don’t have specific numerical targets for each race in mind.
6. We’re Confused About Diversity
7. Affirmative Action as Reparations?
8. The Equilibrium Will Change. The result of banning “Affirmative Action” is not only up to the Supreme Court. It is also up to the many actors––with their own incentives and constraints––who will change their behavior in response to the ban.
9. If Not Affirmative Action, then What?

Another article on affirmative action:

DEI, CRT and affirmative action — are there only two sides?

A History of Islam Part 2

It’s one thing to desire that others share your beliefs; it’s quite another to go and make disciples by holding a sword over their heads.

Why is it important to understand how the Arab Empire used force to gain converts and the territories where these converts lived? It’s because modern jihadis remember this history and are resurrecting it and attempting to replicate it in modern times (with less success, as the scattering of ISIS forces in Syria has shown, though terrorism continues). We see them as barbaric and cruel, but they see themselves as preserving their faith. They never give up, mostly because they are religiously motivated. Infidel diplomats from the hated West are not about to dissuade them from what they believe to be a command from their God to conquer the world by whatever means necessary, including lies, subterfuge, coercion, and force. This is what the increasingly secular West fails or, to be more accurate, refuses to understand. By contrast, followers of Jesus are called to attract the lost to their faith through other means: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23). We are to be known to others by the way we love one another.

……………….

THE DECLINE OF THE ANCIENT ARAB EMPIRE

What went wrong? Why did such intellectual pursuits and successes not inspire future generations of Arabs and Muslims? In part, it is because of the profile of most nations—with the West being a notable exception for the moment—which at some point run out of steam and turn inward. Whereas the Arab world once welcomed interaction and cooperation with others, it began to isolate itself. As historian Hillel Ofek observed, “The civilization that had produced cities, libraries, and observatories and opened itself to the world had now regressed and become closed, resentful, violent, and hostile to discourse and innovation.” Ofek also identified a rejection of reason and philosophy as contributing to the fall of the Arab Empire. In essence, both were deemed incompatible with Islamic teaching.

Source: America's Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers… and the Future of the United States (2020) by Cal Thomas.

Hospitals Instruct Midwives to Use Terms ‘Chest Feeding’ and ‘Human Milk’ to Be ‘Gender Inclusive’

From The Gateway Pundit.com (Feb. 10, 2021):

Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals will also be rebranding their maternity services department as “perinatal services.”

“Terms like ‘chest feeding’ and ‘human milk’ are being introduced at an NHS trust in a bid to boost inclusivity,” Bristol Live reports. “Staff have been asked to use gender-neutral language alongside – not instead of – traditional terms to ensure that all groups are represented.”

LBC reports that terms such as “woman” and “father” will also be superseded by “woman or person” and “parent,” “co-parent,” or “second biological parent” respectively.

“For us, a gender-additive approach means using gender-neutral language alongside the language of womanhood, in order to ensure that everyone is represented and included. … It is important to note that the term ‘women’ encompasses both cis and trans women. Professionals should be aware that co-parents could have any gender identity, and could also be cis, trans, non-binary, and/or intersex. … Unless conversation is focused on gender identity with relation to cis, trans or non- binary status, it is not necessary to include the adjectives ‘cis’ or ‘trans’ before the words ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ or ‘person,'” Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust said in a statement about the changes.

The Daily Wire reports that “on a poster titled ‘Gender Inclusive Perinatal Care,’ Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust asks, ‘What can you do to support trans & non-binary parents?’ The poster answers, ‘Ask ALL service users about their pronouns & offer pronoun stickers to trans & non-binary people,’ ‘offer your own pronouns when introducing yourself,’ ‘get comfortable with ‘They, them, theirs’ pronouns,’ ‘use inclusive language when talking to, or about, groups of people,’ ‘make sure signs and leaflets are gender-inclusive.’” [source]

HAS ISRAEL JUST FOUND THE CURE FOR COVID?

From Israel21c.org (Feb. 7, 2021):

Even with Israel’s world-leading rollout of Covid-19 vaccinations, drugs to treat Covid patients are in desperate need across the world.

Two such drugs developed in Israel show great promise in clinical trials: EXO-CD24 and Allocetra.

EXO-CD24, an experimental inhaled medication developed at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, cured all 30 moderate-to-severe cases in a Phase I clinical trial.

Developed over the past six months at the hospital, EXOCD24 stops the “cytokine storm” – where the immune system goes out of control and starts attacking healthy cells – that occurs in the lungs of 5-7% of Covid-19 patients.

“To date, the preparation has been tried with great success on 30 severe patients, in 29 of whom the medical condition improved within two to three days and most of them were discharged home within three to five days. The 30th patient also recovered but after a longer time,” the hospital reports.

“The drug is based on exosomes, [vesicles] that are released from the cell membrane and used for intercellular communication. We enrich the exosomes with 24CD protein. This protein is expressed on the surface of the cell and has a known and important role in regulating the immune system,” explained Dr. Shiran Shapira, director of the laboratory of Prof. Nadir Arber, who has been researching the CD24 protein for over two decades.

“The preparation is given by inhalation, once a day, for only a few minutes, for five days,” Shapira said.

She said the experimental treatment has two unique characteristics. The first is that it inhibits the over-secretion of cytokines. The second is that it is delivered directly to the lungs and therefore has no systemic side effects that injected or oral drugs can cause.

“Even if the vaccines perform their function, and even if no new mutations are produced then still in one way or another the corona will remain with us,” said Arber, director of the medical center’s Integrated Cancer Prevention Center. “To this end, we have developed a unique drug, EXO-CD24.”

Arber added that this advanced preparation “can be produced quickly and efficiently and at a very low cost in every pharmaceutical facility in the country, and in a short time globally.”

Prof. Ronni Gamzu, CEO of the medical center, said, “Prof. Arber’s results for first-phase research were excellent and gave us all confidence in the method he has been researching [here] for many years. I personally assisted him in further obtaining the approvals from the Ministry of Health for further research.”

Allocetra

Meanwhile, Enlivex Therapeutics last week reported positive results from a multi-center Phase II clinical trial of its experimental Covid-19 immunotherapy drug Allocetra in severe and critical Covid-19 patients.

We reported in October that five Covid-19 intensive care patients were discharged from Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem after treatment with Allocetra.

Nine severe and seven critical Covid-19 patients were treated with Allocetra in the Phase II clinical trial. Fourteen of them recovered and were discharged from the hospital after an average of 5.3 days.

The Phase II trial originally was expected to enroll 24 patients but was “completed early in support of anticipated accelerated regulatory filings of the trial’s positive safety and efficacy data,” Enlivex reported.

Altogether, 19 out of 21 Phase II and Phase Ib Allocetra trial patients recovered and were discharged from the hospital after an average of 5.6 days. Most of the patients in both studies had pre-existing risk factors such as male gender, obesity and hypertension.

“The results we have seen from the 12 Covid-19 patients treated to date with Allocetra are exciting,” said Prof. Vernon van Heerden, head of the General Intensive Care Unit at Hadassah and the lead investigator of both clinical trials.

“The Phase II patients who have been discharged from the hospital are currently healthy. We believe that these compelling results have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of Allocetra in these complicated patients, highlighting the potential of Enlivex’s product candidate to benefit severe and critical Covid-19 patients as well as others suffering from cytokine storms and organ dysfunctions across various clinical indications.”

Allocetra is based on the research of Enlivex chief scientific and medical officer Dr. Dror Mevorach, head of internal medicine and of one of Hadassah’s coronavirus wards. It works by restoring balance to the immune system.

Mevorach said Allocetra “may have utility as a safe and efficacious treatment … regardless of the specific coronavirus mutation that afflicted the patients, and across different life-threatening, high mortality clinical indications with high unmet medical needs.” [source]

Supreme Court Rejects Biden's $400 Billion Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

From Newsmax.com (June 30, 2023):

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce student loans for millions of Americans.

The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, effectively killed the $400 billion plan, announced by President Joe Biden last year, and left borrowers on the hook for repayments that are expected to resume by late summer.

The court held that the administration needs Congress' endorsement before undertaking so costly a program. The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with student loans, known as the HEROES Act, gave Biden the power he claimed.

“Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, joined by the court’s two other liberals, that the majority of the court “overrides the combined judgment of the Legislative and Executive Branches, with the consequence of eliminating loan forgiveness for 43 million Americans.”

Loan repayments are expected to resume by late August under a schedule initially set by the administration and included in the agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Payments have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago.

The forgiveness program would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, would have had an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.

Twenty-six million people had applied for relief and 43 million would have been eligible, the administration said. The cost was estimated at $400 billion over 30 years.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission. [source]

Good. Students need to pay off their own loans. Colleges could reduce their prices too. That would help. Glad this bribe for votes was shot down.

Ashli Babbitt’s Family Sues U.S. Govt For $30 Million

From Daily Wire.com (Jan. 7):

The family of Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was fatally shot in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, sued the U.S. government for $30 million on Friday claiming Babbitt was “ambushed” by a police officer.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed the suit in California federal court on behalf of Babbitt’s estate and husband, Aaron, who is a resident of San Diego, alleging counts that included assault and battery, negligence, wrongful death and more.

The complaint particularly raises issues with the U.S. Capitol Police and then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer who shot Babbitt as she attempted to pass through a broken window of a barricaded lobby door, unarmed, during the breach that disrupted lawmakers certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory.

“The only homicide on January 6 was the unlawful shooting death of Ashli Babbitt. Her homicide by Lt. Byrd is a scandal beyond belief. This historic lawsuit seeks a measure of justice and government accountability for Ashli’s wrongful death,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.

“Judicial Watch and our supporters are honored to represent Ashli’s steadfast widower Aaron Babbitt and her estate in this legal action. Ashli was shot in cold blood and the rule of law requires justice for her,” Fitton added.

Among the assertions made in the complaint was that Byrd was not in uniform during the incident and “did not identify himself as a police officer or otherwise make his presence known to Ashli. Lt. Byrd did not give Ashli any warnings or commands before shooting her dead.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in April 2021 that prosecutors would not pursue charges against Byrd for the fatal shooting of Babbitt, who was 35 at the time of her death.

An investigation “revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,” the DOJ said.

Months later, in August 2021, the U.S. Capitol Police said Byrd would not face internal discipline. In an interview with NBC News that aired later that month, Byrd revealed his identity and claimed he opened fire as a “last resort.” [source]

Good. I hope she finally gets the justice she deserves. Her death should have never happened. It's funny that Byrd fired at her and not at the vandals who were trying to break the window. Seems odd.

A History of Islam Part 1

THE DECLINE OF THE ANCIENT ARAB EMPIRE

What went wrong? Why did such intellectual pursuits and successes not inspire future generations of Arabs and Muslims? In part, it is because of the profile of most nations—with the West being a notable exception for the moment—which at some point run out of steam and turn inward. Whereas the Arab world once welcomed interaction and cooperation with others, it began to isolate itself. As historian Hillel Ofek observed, “The civilization that had produced cities, libraries, and observatories and opened itself to the world had now regressed and become closed, resentful, violent, and hostile to discourse and innovation.” Ofek also identified a rejection of reason and philosophy as contributing to the fall of the Arab Empire. In essence, both were deemed incompatible with Islamic teaching.

………….

THE AGES OF PIONEERS AND CONQUESTS

From the start, Arabic Islam used earthly power to achieve what adherents believed to be heavenly goals. Muslim tribes raided villages, seeking to impose their faith and will. They lacked a regular army at first, but that was soon to change. Adherents were rapidly added, sometimes by conversion (a lot of it forced) and other times by means of the sword. A newly organized Muslim navy wiped out the Christian fleet in the Battle of the Masts (655 CE). The expanding Muslim army attacked Constantinople during this period but never succeeded in capturing it.

The rapid military successes were partly a result of the weakness of the conquered countries, brought on by decades of external conflicts and internal structures. (Infighting has been a problem for Islam too, as Sunni and Shia Muslims continue to battle each other today. But both hate the Sufis, whom they regard as heretics, and all branches of Islam—to one extent or another, with a few exceptions—hate Jews and Christians, the latter of whom they call cross worshipers, or polytheists for believing in a triune God.)

Source: America's Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers… and the Future of the United States (2020) by Cal Thomas.

Only Reagan and Trump Understand America

From American Thinker.com (Aug. 16, 2020):

There was a fascinating interview with Soviet KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov in 1984 in which he foretold in unerring detail the exact social and political scenarios that would exist in America in the near future. His contention was that the KGB was involved primarily not in espionage, but in an activity that he called "ideological subversion."

According to Bezmenov, the KGB's goal was to take down America by slowly changing the minds of the population from within.  He said the Soviet Union was producing Marxist-Leninist thoughts that are "being pumped into the heads of American students without [those thoughts] being counterbalanced by American/capitalistic values."  Bezmenov posits that the children of the '60s are now the adults, in positions of power, and "you are stuck with them, you cannot get rid of them, you cannot change their minds even in the presence of facts, even if you show them that black is black and white is white."

It was incredibly fortuitous that Ronald Reagan was president when he was.  Watching this interview, one shudders to think of the permanent damage that would have been done by a second Carter term.

Bezmenov cites Walter Mondale as the figure who will "promise all kinds of goodies and freebies, regardless of whether he can actually deliver them."  You could substitute any current-day Democrat for "Mondale," and it would be the exact same thing.

Whether the Soviets or China, the point is clear: as Beznemov says, "unless you wake up, you only have several years.  The time bomb is ticking, the disaster is coming and unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect to."

President Reagan understood the threat to a greater degree than any post–World War II president before him.  Reagan's military build-up and tough foreign policy did, in fact, force the Soviets to change their behavior, and those policies led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the pulling back of the Iron Curtain.

Unfortunately, Reagan's successors — George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — were all committed globalists, more concerned with world economic equality; "social justice"; the introduction of distorted societal values (such as unbiological redefinition of sex); open U.S. borders; outsourcing our manufacturing through one-sided international trade agreements designed, inexplicably, to give other nations economic parity — or advantage! — over America; and the intentional use of seemingly random issues like climate to forge multi-national wealth transfer arrangements from the U.S to third-world countries, at the expense of American workers and American jobs, as some kind of supposed admission and apology for our centuries of bad acts and taking unfair advantage of other countries.

From 1988 to 2016, all four administrations practiced variations of the same theme: the rest of the world first, America second.  They differed in their details and their party affiliation, but all four were cut from the same cloth.  The media became more liberal and one-sided with each one.  College campuses became more stridently anti-American with each one.  American history became more reviled and subject to revisionist interpretation under each one.  Class divisions were arbitrarily created and intentionally exploited for political gain with each succeeding administration.  As Bezmenov observed with such prescience in 1984, facts no longer mattered, nor do dissenters change their minds in the presence of those facts.

This is likely the source of hatred held by so many toward Donald Trump: he understands on such a basic, elemental level what it takes for America to be successful as a country and as a society.  While his brusque demeanor and harsh verbal style turn off the shallow leftist hordes who are concerned only with surface, visual impressions and meaningless "gotcha" episodes, President Trump's instinctive recognition of what makes America work — figuratively and literally — is a direct threat to the deep establishment that is cemented in place in the networks of political and economic power in this country.  President Trump's intention to do what's in the best interest of American workers and families is often at direct odds with what is in the best interests of the longstanding power-brokers of this country.  That is the real source of Trump hatred.

That the opposition party would oppose Trump is obvious.  His political success is their political failure.  He handily defeated the shoo-in First Female President; he calls out the liberal media for the fake news they are; and he refuses to bow down to conventional leftist political correctness, whether it be so-called global warming, calling the Chinese-started virus the China virus, or accurately identifying Democratically run cities as the economic and lawless disasters that they are.  Those are all easy, obvious targets for the Pelosis, the Squads, and the Schumers of the world to take aim at.

But President Trump is the first Republican president who has deep opposition from within his own party.  Former House speaker Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, the much heralded "Maverick of the Senate" John McCain, and others in politics and business are "Never Trumps."  And no, it's not because even some reasonable Republicans can see that President Trump is not up to standard as our chief executive, as the unthinking, unintellectual Democratic contingent would have you believe.

The Never Trumps recognize the mortal threat the president poses to their corrupt, lucrative, business-as-usual world.  President Trump may not have ever heard of Yuri Bezmenov, but President Trump understands on a fundamental level — as only Reagan did before him — what it takes for the United States to be successful in today's world.  He understands the threat of Communist China both economically and militarily the same way President Reagan recognized the threat posed by the Soviet Union.  He understands how the distortion of societal values and revisionist history pose a grave threat to the well-being of our culture and he understands how an "America First" approach to jobs, domestic energy, defense, and education will raise our standard of living and strengthen our competitive position in the world.  As President Reagan took steps against the Soviets, President Trump is taking concrete steps against the communist Chinese.  Those steps are threatening not only to the Chinese, but also to Western business and political interests who profit from those China dealings, even to the detriment of America.

There is a reasonable theory that the Chinese recognized the threat that President Trump poses to China's goal of world domination and that they unleashed the coronavirus intentionally, knowing full well the calamitous effect it would have on America economically and on President Trump politically.  The Democrats weren't going to beat President Trump under normal circumstances in 2020.  But they may now, with their Biden-as-Mondale nominee and the subversive intervention of China.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," as the saying goes. T he communist Chinese, the Democrats, and the Never Trumps all have a common enemy: President Trump.

But honest working Americans know that President Trump is steadfastly, unwaveringly on their side, on America's side, as President Reagan was 40 years ago.  Their dedication to the country and effectiveness on behalf of the country is unmatched by any other President in the last 70 years. [source]

Bank of America ‘Is Without The Knowledge Or The Consent’ Of Customers ‘Sharing Private’ Info With Feds, Tucker Carlson Reports

From Daily Wire.com (Feb. 5, 2021):

Fox News host Tucker Carlson reported exclusively on Thursday night that Bank of America is allegedly turning over private information about its customers to federal law enforcement officials — without the knowledge or consent of its customers — in an apparent effort to identify those who participated in the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol Building.

Carlson led off the segment by talking about how the Biden administration and law enforcement has stated that they want to go after domestic “extremists,” but have not laid out a clear definition of what qualifies as an “extremist.”

“What exactly are they doing?” Carlson asked. “How are they hunting these extremists they keep telling us about, but will not describe?”

“We now know part of the answer to that question,” Carlson said. “This show has obtained exclusively evidence that Bank of America, the second largest bank in the country with more than 60 million customers, is actively but secretly engaged in the hunt for extremists in cooperation with the government.”

“Bank of America is, without the knowledge or the consent of its customers, sharing private information with federal law enforcement agencies,” Carlson continued. “Bank of American effectively is acting as an intelligence agency, but they’re not telling you about it. In the days after the January 6 riot at the Capitol, Bank of America went through its own customers’ financial and transaction records … these were the private records of Americans who had committed no crime, people, who as far as we know, had absolutely nothing to do with what happened at the Capitol on January 6.”

“But at the request of federal investigators, Bank of America searched its databases looking for people who fit a specific profile,” Carlson continued. “Here’s what that profile was, and we are quoting, ‘customers confirmed as transacting either through bank account, debit card, or credit card purchases in Washington, D.C., between January 5 and January 6. Number two, purchases made for hotels, Airbnb, RSVPs, in Washington, Virginia, or Maryland after January 6. Number three, any purchase of weapons or at a weapons-related merchant between January 7 and their upcoming suspected stay in the D.C. area around Inauguration Day. And four, airline-related purchases since January 6.”

“So what do you notice about that profile? Well, the first thing you notice is that it’s remarkably broad,” Carlson said. “Any purchases of anything in the city of Washington, D.C., any overnight state anywhere in the three state area, that spans hundreds of miles, any purchase, not simply of legal firearms, but instead anything bought from a ‘weapons related merchant,’ t-shirts included, and then any airline related purchases, not just flights to Washington, flights to anywhere — to Omaha, to Thailand.”

“Bank of America identified a total of 211 customers who met these ‘thresholds of interest,’” he continued. “And it was at that point, the show has learned, Bank of America turned over the results of its internal scan to federal authorities, apparently without notifying the customers who were being spied upon. Federal investigators then interviewed at least one of these unsuspecting people, and that person, we’ve learned, hadn’t done anything wrong, and in the end, was cleared. Imagine if you were that person. The FBI hauls you in for questioning in a terror investigation, not because you’ve done anything suspicious — you haven’t — you bought plane tickets and visited your country’s capital, you thought you could do that, you thought it was your country. Now they’re sweating you because your bank, which you trust with your most private information, information of everything you buy, has ratted you out to the feds without telling you, without your knowledge.”

“Because Bank of America did that, you’re being treated like a member of al-Qaeda,” he continued. “What country is this? It doesn’t matter how much you despise Donald Trump, or how much you believe that hatred of Trump justifies suspending this country’s ancient civil liberties. Going through that experience would scare the hell out of you. Absolutely. A terror suspect, you would think? Does anyone else know about this? Is there a record of this interview? Will I lose my job because of it? That actually happened to someone. It’s hard to believe it, but it did. We asked Bank of America about this. They confirmed it actually happened by not denying it.”

Carlson then read off a statement from Bank of America:

We don’t comment on our communications with law enforcement. All banks have responsibilities under federal law to cooperate with law enforcement inquiries in full compliance with the law.

“Now the last part, from the lawyers perspective, is the essence — in full compliance with the law. It’s the law; we had no choice. But that’s not true. Bank of America did have a choice. The bank could have resisted turning over information on its innocent customers to federal investigators. But Bank of America did not do that. Nor is it clear, if we’re going to be precise about it, that what Bank of America did is even legal. It turns out it’s not simple. It’s a gray area,” Carlson continued. “We spoke to a number of lawyers about this today, [some of them] told us that what Bank of America did might in fact not be legal, and could in fact be challenged in court.” [source]

Not good business practices.

Attackers can break voice authentication with up to 99% success within six tries: Study

From Tech Xplore.com (June 27, 2023):

Computer scientists at the University of Waterloo have discovered a method of attack that can successfully bypass voice authentication security systems with up to a 99% success rate after only six tries.

Voice authentication—which allows companies to verify the identity of their clients via a supposedly unique "voiceprint"—has increasingly been used in remote banking, call centers and other security-critical scenarios.

"When enrolling in voice authentication, you are asked to repeat a certain phrase in your own voice. The system then extracts a unique vocal signature (voiceprint) from this provided phrase and stores it on a server," said Andre Kassis, a Computer Security and Privacy Ph.D. candidate and the lead author of a study detailing the research.

"For future authentication attempts, you are asked to repeat a different phrase and the features extracted from it are compared to the voiceprint you have saved in the system to determine whether access should be granted."

After the concept of voiceprints was introduced, malicious actors quickly realized they could use machine learning-enabled "deepfake" software to generate convincing copies of a victim's voice using as little as five minutes of recorded audio.

In response, developers introduced "spoofing countermeasures"—checks that could examine a speech sample and determine whether it was created by a human or a machine.

The Waterloo researchers have developed a method that evades spoofing countermeasures and can fool most voice authentication systems within six attempts. They identified the markers in deepfake audio that betray it is computer-generated, and wrote a program that removes these markers, making it indistinguishable from authentic audio.

In a recent test against Amazon Connect's voice authentication system, they achieved a 10% success rate in one four-second attack, with this rate rising to over 40% in less than 30 seconds. With some of the less sophisticated voice authentication systems they targeted, they achieved a 99% success rate after six attempts.

Kassis contends that while voice authentication is obviously better than no additional security, the existing spoofing countermeasures are critically flawed.

"The only way to create a secure system is to think like an attacker. If you don't, then you're just waiting to be attacked," Kassis said.

Kassis' supervisor, computer science professor Urs Hengartner added, "By demonstrating the insecurity of voice authentication, we hope that companies relying on voice authentication as their only authentication factor will consider deploying additional or stronger authentication measures."

The research, Breaking Security-Critical Voice Authentication, by Kassis and Dr. Hengartner, was published in the proceedings of the 44th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. [source]

Doesn't sound good.

IDF Kills Hamas Nukhba Commander Who Led Kibbutz Kissufim Assault

From News Max.com (Jan. 10):

Israel continued pressing its Gaza offensive in the new year, killing a Hamas commander in an airstrike and pounding more of the terrorist group's infrastructure, the Israel Defense Forces said on Monday morning.

An Air Force fighter jet directed by ground forces killed Adil Mismah, the Nukhba company commander in Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip.

Mismah commanded the terrorists of this elite company who attacked Kibbutz Kissufim on Oct. 7, where eight residents and six Thai workers were murdered, and at least four people were abducted. Mismah directed other Hamas terrorists to communities near the Gaza border, including Kibbutz Be'eri and Kibbutz Nirim, where a total of 135 Israelis were murdered.

Some 1,200 persons, mostly civilians, were murdered on Oct. 7 when waves of Hamas terrorists led by the elite Nuhkba forces stormed across the border, rampaging across the northwestern Negev. Thousands more were wounded and at least 240 taken hostage. The terrorists committed acts of rape, sexual abuse, burning people alive, torture, mutilation, and desecrating the dead.

After the IDF invaded Gaza 20 days later, Mismah continued to lead attacks against Israeli forces.

In Gaza City's Shejaia neighborhood over the weekend, Israeli soldiers raided a command and control center used by both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The soldiers also discovered many weapons inside a mosque.

Ground forces also directed air strikes on a Hamas squad near Khan Yunis launching rockets, and against terrorists who fired a mortar at soldiers. The terrorists in both strikes were killed.

During the night, Israeli naval forces struck terror infrastructure and other Hamas positions in support of ground forces. [source]

Good! Death to Hamas!

Excerpts from the book "America's Expiration Date" Part 2

While Heraclius was able to restore much of the Byzantine Empire, wars with the Sasanian Empire and Muslim armies, and his failure to settle religious disputes within Christianity, left him weakened and contributed to the loss of several of his provinces.

…………

Contributing to Byzantium’s decline was what we might today call “mob politics,” an appropriate label for much of what describes modern America. Mob politics then, as it has now, replaced serious debate aimed at discovering what is true and finding solutions to challenging problems. The mob politics of the Byzantine era involved something called the circus factions, which were basically composed of fans of various chariot race teams. Recall the chariot race scene in the film Ben-Hur, with the partisans in the Roman crowd cheering their favorite driver or jeering the others, and you get a sense of what the circus factions looked like, except these partisans had strong political overtones and affiliations.

……….

[T]he Byzantine Empire was a theocracy, and history has shown that once a religion is institutionalized and forced upon people, it loses its power and vitality. The challenge for any nation is to allow religion to function freely without giving it “official” status. That was the vision and hope of America’s founding fathers, who wanted the state kept out of the church while protecting the “free exercise” of the faith of believers.

…………

America’s founding fathers, who wanted the state kept out of the church while protecting the “free exercise” of the faith of believers.

Source: America's Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers… and the Future of the United States (2020) by Cal Thomas.

The Burmese Mess Demonstrates the Incoherence of America's Crusades for Democracy

From Mises.org (Feb. 8, 2021):

An underlying theme throughout elite circles in government, media, and culture during the previous four years of the Trump administration was the overwhelming sense that the entire experience was some kind of unholy aberration. Somehow this buffoonish ogre had come to dwell in the great and holy temple of Democracy and had defiled it with his incessant tweeting and failure to play by the traditional rules of DC. However, at long last, the ogre and his demonic regressive hordes have been ejected from the temple, and their foul stench can be cleansed from the holy places (though this crowd still openly fantasizes about bringing such heretics before Rwanda-style “truth and reconciliation commissions”).

According to many of these elite members of the Church of Democracy (CoD), one of the gravest sins of the great ogre was his failure to maintain “US leadership” around the globe. One of the immutable tenets of the dogma of the CoD is that the entire world is on the verge of collapsing into utter chaos and mass slaughter unless the US government and its various nongovernmental organization proxies involve themselves in every minor detail of life in even the most obscure and distant parts of the earth. However, not to fear, with Biden’s ascension to the high priesthood, the “correct people” will be in charge again and can quickly start to get the world back together after four years of supposed neglect.

While it is clear that this leadership class has no doubt of their own infallibility, the recent coup in Burma, and this class’s predictable reactions to it, serves to demonstrate their intellectual bankruptcy and ineptitude.

Burma is a rather obscure country that has little bearing on the lives of most Americans, so some background context for the situation is warranted. Burma is a country in Southeast Asia located between northeastern India and Bangladesh to the west and China, Laos, and Thailand to the east. It became a British colony in the late nineteenth century and an independent state in 1948. However, the country is stuffed full of ethnic and religious minorities, and when there was talk of decentralization, the military took over the country in 1962 and has more or less ruled it since then. Ethnic minorities have battled the military government for decades, and the country has been wracked by armed conflicts of varying degrees of intensity over the years. In the 1990 elections, a “prodemocracy” party led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the daughter of the “father of the nation” won in a landslide, but the military overturned the results and Suu Kyi spent most of the next two decades under house arrest.

It is important to note that around the same time, the ruling junta decided that Burma was no longer Burma and decided to rename the country Myanmar. Both terms have come to be highly politicized, with international opponents of the regime continuing to refer to the country as Burma. However, without advocating for regime change, one may also refer to the country as Burma out of simple opposition to governments attempting to uproot history with ideologically motivated name changes (think of the similar instances in the USSR where cities were renamed, such as St. Petersburg to Leningrad and Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad and then the current Volgograd during Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization in the 1960s).

Burma has long been a cause célèbre among the faith militant of the CoD and the country has faced US sanctions in various forms going back to 1961. Suu Kyi has especially been a noted icon of veneration, having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2008. After her release from house arrest in 2010, she resumed her political activity and in 2016 she assumed the newly created post of state counselor (similar to a prime minister).

Whereas the Catholic Church has the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, which is responsible for canonizing saints through a long process that includes investigation of miracles, the CoD is much less rigorous in its canonization process (the highest form of which is the Nobel Peace Prize), and this has resulted in some rather farcical situations. One could look to Alexander Solzhenitsyn (awarded 1970), who is on the record numerous times opposing contemporary forms of Western democracy. Or to Yasser Arafat (corecipient in 1994) who later went on to order the Second Intifada that killed thousands. Or even more recently to Barack Obama (awarded 2009), who went on to personally oversee a targeted killings program that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

After being released from house arrest, Suu Kyi became one such “problematic figure.” After becoming state counselor, Suu Kyi came under intense criticism and scrutiny for her failure to do anything about the repression and ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority in Burma that has been oppressed for decades. Not only has she been criticized for failing to stop the violence, or even condemn it, but she actually defended the Burmese government and the military before the International Court of Justice at The Hague. When pressed on the issue all the way back in 2013 by BBC reporter Mishal Husain, who is Muslim, Suu Kyi was overheard complaining to her staff that "[n]o one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim."

Suu Kyi’s hostility toward the Rohingya is not exactly surprising, as a very large number of Burmese, including Western-educated human rights activists, consider them to be “untrustworthy foreigners who had to be controlled or expelled for the good of the nation.” No one knows for sure whether her actions stem from deeply felt personal animosity or are merely the result of her practicing realpolitik due to the political realities of Burma, but the fact that members of the CoD are so shocked that one of their heroes has acted in the way that she has betrays their flawed understanding of the rest of the world.

At the heart of the American branch of the CoD is the idea that the majority of people in every country have a strong and innate desire to live like Americans. The CoD considers itself a universal religion that is applicable to all places and people around the globe and therefore assumes that if given the choice everyone will live “like us.” Yet experience has shown time and time again that this is not the case. One merely needs to look at how “democracy building” (the CoD’s term for missionary work, sometimes facilitated at gunpoint) has worked in places such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. The CoD saw Suu Kyi and assumed that because she shared some of their goals and principles she must be waiting to turn Burma into a mini-America. Yet they are clearly wrong, just as they have been on numerous other occasions.

Suu Kyi is back under arrest now, after the Burmese military launched a coup on February 1 and locked up the democratically elected government (in a sign that the military is getting lazy, she was charged with owning foreign-made walkie-talkies). This of course has been met with howls of international protest and stern warnings from the Biden administration that it will “defend democracy around the world,” whatever that means.

Americans may wonder why the US should dedicate time and resources to a country they have never heard of to keep in power a woman who has continued to defend the popularly supported program of ethnic cleansing of an unpopular minority. The simple answer is that for the CoD the matter is one of religious conviction, and previous failures have never stopped religious fundamentalists in the past. The rest of us can only be thankful that the damage from their incoherent zealotry isn’t likely to approach the scale of previous crusades for democracy that we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. [source]

Biden Admin Yanks Maternity Leave From Trump Appointees Days Before Some Give Birth

From The Federalist.com (Feb. 4, 2021):

President Joe Biden’s administration denied multiple President Trump-era aides their previously established maternity leave, some days before birth, reports Politico.

Even though some Trump aides made arrangements for parental leave early in 2021 in advance of their children’s births, multiple federal employees were told shortly before or after their babies arrived that the benefits would no longer be extended to them after Biden and his team took office.

Some families pleaded with the new administration to honor the previous agreements, one couple writing that they were counting on the leave to deal with “unforeseen complications” during the birth of their child.

“[T]he remaining 9-10 weeks afforded to federal employees is critical to our family and livelihoods as we work to raise a strong, healthy boy under unique and unforeseen complications to our birth plan,” the married Department of Homeland Security officials wrote.

But their calls were disregarded by Biden’s transition team, which said the officials’ previously pledged benefits including payroll ended when former President Donald Trump departed the White House. Continuity between administrations is a long-established tradition in the interests of fairness and unity.

“We understand that a few Trump appointees, including a handful currently on parental leave, submitted last-minute requests to remain on government payroll,” one White House official said. “Because these requests were received so close to Inauguration Day… there was no way to implement an exception to the rule in a way that is fair to all outgoing appointees, including many who resigned as expected without making requests for extraordinary benefits.”

Instead of keeping their leave, “appointees have been advised that they have options including COBRA and the Affordable Care Act.”

Biden previously claimed to be a strong advocate for paid paternity and maternity leave, claiming it should be a requirement for federal agencies to offer.

“It’s about time that federal workers get paid parental leave,” he tweeted in 2019, shortly after Congress passed the Federal Employees Paid Leave Act which granted federal government employees up to 12 weeks of paid leave for their child’s birth.

“Democrats believe in paid leave,” he wrote in another tweet in 2016.

While Congress technically passed the bipartisan leave legislation granting parents working in federal agencies the opportunities to receive paid leave, the statutory interpretation of the policy in the context of a presidential transition is open to manipulation, leaving some federal employees feeling helpless and betrayed.

“I got completely screwed,” one official said in an interview. “There were no caveats in that language saying anything about if the administration turns, you get nothing and of course, that happened and so I got nothing.” [source]

Real nice. So, much for being a “nice” grandpa figure.

Supreme Court will hear case with major implications for liberal 'wealth tax' plans

From Washington Examiner.com (June 28):

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a tax case that could put the fate of the Biden administration's "wealth tax" and other future tax proposals in jeopardy.

The high court decided on Monday to take up Moore v. United States, which challenges the "mandatory repatriation tax" as a violation of the Sixteenth Amendment. If found unconstitutional, it could pump the brakes on President Joe Biden's tax proposal aimed at taxing the U.S.'s ultra-wealthy.

Moore v. United States challenges what counts as taxable income and whether income has to be realized to be taxed. The petitioners argue they did not realize or receive any payment from the company in which they had an investment.

The case centers around the Moores, who made an almost $40,000 investment into an Indian corporation in 2005. They did not receive any money or other payments from the company, despite the corporation making a profit every year.

Under the 2017 tax reform law, which came out of the Trump administration, the petitioners learned that they were subject to a mandatory repatriation tax. This law required taxpayers to pay taxes on reinvested earnings — something the Moores are now challenging as unconstitutional. They paid the tax, worth $14,729, and sued for a refund.

The Sixteenth Amendment, which authorizes Congress to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States," is significant to the federal tax system.

The amendment applies to taxes on realized income only, the petitioners argue, and therefore their payment through the mandatory repatriation tax is unconstitutional.

The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the Biden administration's "wealth tax," with many members of Congress already calling attention to the possibility that the proposal is another unconstitutional tax on unrealized income or gains.

Earlier this year, Biden proposed a 25% minimum tax on all wealth over $100 million, which is estimated to target 0.01% of the nation's population.

If the court rules in favor of the Moores, it could put the wealth tax proposal and changes to the taxing of financial market products at stake.

However, it is not likely that a decision will be made for some time. Hearing for arguments will most likely begin in October, as the Supreme Court has several major decisions to get through before it recesses for the summer. [source]

I hope eventually the Supreme Court rules against the wealth tax. Otherwise America is completely screwed.

Jack Smith: Trump Shouldn't Be Allowed to Tell Jury Biden Targeted Him

From News Max.com (Dec. 27):

Special counsel Jack Smith's office said in court papers filed on Wednesday that former President Donald Trump should be prohibited from making “political attacks” about his federal 2020 election subversion criminal prosecution at trial, specifically that he be barred from telling jurors he is being selectively prosecuted, The Hill has reported.

“Through public statements, filings, and argument in hearings before the court, the defense has attempted to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial,” senior assistant special counsel Molly Gaston wrote in the papersfiled to the court.

“Although the court can recognize these efforts for what they are and disregard them, the jury — if subjected to them — may not,” Gaston explained. “The court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding.”

The trial is currently scheduled to start on March 4, the first of Trump’s four criminal cases as he runs for the 2024 presidential election.

That trial date has however increasingly come into doubt as Trump appeals his presidential immunity and double jeopardy defenses, with the trial proceedings on hold until these are resolved, according to The Hill.

But prosecutors have continued to meet the various pre-trial deadlines, including Wednesday’s to make any requests to exclude evidence.

Trump attorney John Lauro told prosecutors in a letter earlier this month that “although the prosecution may wish to rush this case to an early and unconstitutional trial in hopes of undermining President Trump’s commanding lead in the upcoming Presidential election, it must nonetheless abide by the Stay Order.”

Lauro insisted that "we will not accept or review the present production, or any additional productions, until and unless the court lifts the Stay Order. If the prosecution continues to violate the Stay Order, we will seek appropriate relief.” [source]

Bastard! What is the DA afraid of? If that's what Trump believes (I believe  he does because it's true) he should have that right to have his say.

Losing Our Religion: Blue Laws Decline While Deaths of Despair Do Not

From Breakpoint.org (Sept. 23, 2022):

A mortal affliction affects much of America’s heartland. Known as “deaths of despair,” both the Rust Belt and Appalachia have seen incredible spikes in rates of addiction, overdoses, violence, and suicide. In addition to the thousands who die each year by various forms of self-harm, thousands more live Gollum-like, trapped by their chemical chains and in loneliness.

It is a complex situation. While we must not diminish anyone’s moral agency, the downward paths we are on are paved, lined, and greased by a number of contributing factors. For example, Beth Macy, the author of the book Dope Sick, has documented the lethal partnership of doctors and drug companies, not to mention the co-option of government oversight agencies, which inflicted a plague of highly addictive opioids on some of America’s poorest areas of the country.

A new recent study, however, points to an additional complexity, an oft-ignored element of this cultural disease: the decline of religion. According to the study’s authors, there is some correlation between the end of so-called “Blue Laws” and the opioid epidemic. In certain parts of the country, Blue Laws have long limited the range of activities allowed on Sundays. Certain businesses were not allowed to be open, and certain things (especially alcohol) could not be sold. Though these laws continue in certain areas, particularly in Europe, they began to disappear in parts of the United States as the 20th century wore on, to the point that now they are few and far between.

Of course, a significant, culture-wide phenomenon like the opioid crisis cannot be reduced to something as simplistic as whether or not people can shop on Sunday. To do that would be to mistake causation for correlation, kind of like saying murders go up with ice cream sales. And this is something the study’s authors readily admit.

Rather than claiming that the end of Blue Laws created the opioid crisis, they use the end of Blue Laws as a marker to track the decline in American religiosity. The diminishing connections to faith in communities across the country, especially in those areas where they were once so strong, are among the factors that contributed to our nation’s chemical plague. In other words, Blue Laws are a kind of canary in the coal mine, marking when we’ve crossed a dangerous line.

In light of these diminishing religious commitments, reinstating Blue Laws likely will not lead to a reversal in rates of addictions or other deaths of despair. Even if they were an important part of our cultural life of faith at one time, too much has changed for such an easy fix. However, what these laws represented and what has been lost as they disappear points to the underlying causes, not only of the opioid crisis but many of our parallel pains as well.

What we need to ask is, in a mix of Friedrich Nietzsche and REM, what is the cost of losing our religion?

As much as we prize our individualism, particularly here in America, human beings aren’t just dust motes of consciousness, floating on the air currents of life. We’re connected, not just to one another, but to a host of other elements through relationships that give us meaning, identity, direction, and hope. To be healthy, as individuals and as communities, these relationships (upward, inward, outward, and downward) must be strong.

Human beings need a connection to something beyond ourselves, something higher and transcendent in order to find ourselves, to know who and what we are, to be sure of our identity. We need connections with one another, especially the links of family and friendship, in order to be accountable, supported, and complete. And, we need proper connection to the physical world around us, so to be tethered to reality through things like meaningful labor, a place to call home, and some part of the world to call “mine.”

Marx got it wrong. Religion isn’t the opiate of the masses, but instead a part of life most needed, irreplaceable by technological convenience or scientific mastery. The loss of religion has been a bad idea wherever it has been tried, and those suffering across Appalachia and the Rust Belt are some of its most obvious victims. By abandoning religion, specifically the Christianity which once provided meaning to these now missing relationships, the essential connection between individuals and communities and a higher purpose has been lost.

As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said all the way back in 1983, “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Blue Laws didn’t hold off the effects of substance abuse, but the religious impulse that such laws represented were part of a way of seeing life and the world, one in which we weren’t just reduced to being cogs or animals or sexual expressions. The Christianity that the world has rejected offers the hope that the world so desperately needs. [source]

Beijing Biden Beckons China To Take Over The U.S. Power Grid

From 100 Percent Fed Up.com (Jan. 24, 2021):

Countless reports and mountains of evidence tie Beijing Biden and his son, Hunter, to China.  The democrat party and some establishment republicans like Mitch McConnell all seem to have frightening ties to China (—–)

It is no surprise, then, that Joe ‘Beijing’ Biden has taken us one step closer to globalist technocratic authoritarianism by revoking President Trump’s Executive Order 13920 which banned Chinese and other foreign involvement in our power grid via his own executive order called “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis”

Yes, that’s right: somehow, allowing China the possibility to have access to our power grid–a top piece American national security infrastructure–is somehow necessary to combat climate change, promote public health, and promote science.

Does this hurt your brains as much as it does ours?

Here are the details on the original Trump EO from The National Pulse’s Natalie Winters:

“The Trump-era order sought to ban, replace, and set new criteria on bulk-power system (BPS) electric equipment coming from a foreign country or national that poses a national security threat.

“Foreign adversaries are increasingly creating and exploiting vulnerabilities in the United States bulk-power system, which provides the electricity that supports our national defense, vital emergency services, critical infrastructure, economy, and way of life. The bulk-power system is a target of those seeking to commit malicious acts against the United States and its people, including malicious cyber activities, because a successful attack on our bulk-power system would present significant risks to our economy, human health and safety, and would render the United States less capable of acting in defense of itself and its allies,” the introduction to the executive order read.

The move “prohibited any acquisition, importation, transfer, or installation of BPS electric equipment by any person or with respect to any property to which a foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that poses an undue risk to the BPS, the security or resiliency of U.S. critical infrastructure or the U.S. economy, or U.S. national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons.”

The DOE was also tasked with identifying existing BPS electric equipment that violated the aforementioned prescription and “develop recommendations to identify, isolate, monitor, or replace this equipment as appropriate.”

Released on May 1st, 2020, the powers provided in the executive order were utilized by the DOE in early December concerning the Chinese Communist Party.

As of January 16, 2021, then-Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette issued a “prohibition order designed to reduce the risks that entities associated with the People’s Republic of China pose to the Nation’s BPS.”

“The order prohibits utilities that supply critical defense facilities (CDF) from procuring from the People’s Republic of China, specific BPS electric equipment that poses an undue risk to the BPS, the security or resilience of critical infrastructure, the economy, national security, or safety and security of Americans,” a press release adds.”

–

But, Section 7(c) of the new Biden order states that Trump’s 13920 EO is suspended for at least 90 days.  It also states that the future of the Trump’s EO

“(c)  Executive Order 13920 of May 1, 2020 (Securing the United States Bulk-Power System), is hereby suspended for 90 days.  The Secretary of Energy and the Director of OMB shall jointly consider whether to recommend that a replacement order be issued.”

According to Ms. Winters “the fate of the executive order and America’s BPS rests in the hands of Biden’s Secretary of Energy and Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)” who shall “…jointly consider whether to recommend that a replacement order be issued.”

But that is not the end of the deception.  The Biden OMB has serious ties to China, as does Biden’s son:

“The National Pulse exposed Biden’s OMB Head as formerly serving as the president of the Center for American Progress (CAP), an establishment think tank that has taken trips to China and co-authored reports alongside a Chinese Communist Party-backed influence operation.

What’s more, Biden’s son Hunter was previously involved in several business relationships with CEFC China Energy Chairman Ye Jianming.

“After his father left office in 2017, Hunter Biden worked on securing a deal with CEFC China Energy to invest in US energy projects, according to documents released by Republicans,” CNN noted.

Similarly, an investment firm headed by Hunter Biden funneled millions into China General Nuclear Power Corp, a state-owned power company guilty of stealing American nuclear technology for use by the Chinese Communist Party for decades.” [source]

Definitely not a good idea. Then again Briben isn’t look out for America. Just for himself and his crime family

Landmark Publication on Vitamin C for COVID-19

From The Epoch Times.com (Jan. 17, 2021):

Regardless of what the mainstream media wants you to think, many are starting to realize that vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and vitamin D both have an enormous amount of research showing they provide important immune function enhancements, and that your immune function is your frontline defense against all illness, including COVID-19.

The following was reported in the paper "Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect Against Viral Infections," published April 23, 2020:

"The role nutrition plays in supporting the immune system is well-established. A wealth of mechanistic and clinical data show that vitamins, including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D, E, and folate; trace elements, including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper; and the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid play important and complementary roles in supporting the immune system."

“Inadequate intake and status of these nutrients are widespread, leading to a decrease in resistance to infections and as a consequence an increase in disease burden."

High-Dose Vitamin C Acts as Antiviral Drug

As explained by Dr. Andrew Saul, editor-in-chief of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, at extremely high doses, vitamin C actually acts as an antiviral drug, effectively inactivating viruses.

His Tokyo presentation, "Orthomolecular Medicine and Coronavirus Disease: Historical Basis for Nutritional Treatment," highlights the fact that when used as a treatment, high doses of vitamin C—often 1,000 times more than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA)—are needed.

It's a cornerstone of medical science that dose affects treatment outcome, but this premise isn't accepted when it comes to vitamin therapy the way it is with drug therapy. Most vitamin C research has used inadequate, low doses, which don't lead to clinical results.

"The medical literature has ignored over 80 years of laboratory and clinical studies on high-dose ascorbate therapy," Saul notes, adding that while it's widely accepted that vitamin C is beneficial in fighting illness, controversy exists over to what extent.

"Moderate quantities provide effective prevention," he says. "Large quantities are therapeutic."

Landmark Paper Puts Vitamin C on COVID-19 Treatment Map

While health authorities and mainstream media have ignored, if not outright opposed, the use of vitamin C and other supplements in the treatment of COVID-19, citing lack of clinical evidence, we now have a landmark review recommending the use of vitamin C as an adjunctive therapy for respiratory infections, sepsis, and COVID-19.

The review was published Dec. 7, 2020, in the journal Nutrients. It was co-written by Dr. Paul Marik who, in 2017, developed a groundbreaking vitamin C-based treatment for sepsis. Marik is now heading up the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, which has developed a highly successful treatment for COVID-19.

The COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+ while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+, due to the addition of the drug Ivermectin. Vitamin C remains a central component of the treatment.

The two protocols are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine in mid-December 2020.

As explained in the Nutrients review abstract:

"There are limited proven therapies for COVID-19. Vitamin C's antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulating effects make it a potential therapeutic candidate, both for the prevention and amelioration of COVID-19 infection, and as an adjunctive therapy in the critical care of COVID-19.

“This literature review focuses on vitamin C deficiency in respiratory infections, including COVID-19, and the mechanisms of action in infectious disease, including support of the stress response, its role in preventing and treating colds and pneumonia, and its role in treating sepsis and COVID-19.

“The evidence to date indicates that oral vitamin C (2-8 g/day) may reduce the incidence and duration of respiratory infections and intravenous vitamin C (6-24 g/day) has been shown to reduce mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays, and time on mechanical ventilation for severe respiratory infections ...

“Given the favorable safety profile and low cost of vitamin C, and the frequency of vitamin C deficiency in respiratory infections, it may be worthwhile testing patients' vitamin C status and treating them accordingly with intravenous administration within ICUs and oral administration in hospitalized persons with COVID-19." [read more]

Rep. Comer: 'First Evidence' Against Biden Revealed

From News Max.com (Dec. 19):

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability uncovered "the first example of evidence" that President Joe Biden directly benefited from peddling influence via his family's foreign business dealings, said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the committee chair.

Comer, speaking on the "Verdict" podcast hosted by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said his committee exposed the evidence during testimony by "the owner" of Americore Health.

"[The president's brother, James Biden,] approached them [Americore] because he had heard they were financially distressed and said that because he's a Biden, and because of his brother's contacts in the Middle East, that he could help them acquire all the capital that they needed to get back on their feet from the Middle East, but they were going to have to pay Jim Biden first," Comer told Cruz and co-host Ben Ferguson on Monday.

"They gave him $600,000, and by all accounts, Jim Biden completely defrauded Americore Health. He never provided any funding or anything else."

Comer then explained Joe Biden's connection.

"Not only was that a pure example of influence peddling, Joe Biden received the last payment from Americore Health," Comer said.

"They sent a check to Jim Biden for $200,000. The exact same day that Jim Biden received that $200,000 check from Americore Health, they wrote Joe Biden a check for the exact same amount, $200,000. So, that was the first example of evidence that we found where Joe Biden directly benefited from the Biden influence peddling scheme."

James Biden has alleged the payment to Joe Biden was a loan repayment.

"From the notes that the whistleblowers have turned over, we know that sometime in 2018, the Bidens figured out that the IRS was breathing down their necks," Comer told Cruz and Ferguson.

"They changed the way they were operating. They went from receiving wires directing through the shells [shell companies] to receiving payments and calling them loans."

National Review reported that Carol Fox, an Americore Chapter 11 trustee, told the House panel that the now-bankrupt healthcare corporation that she saw no records or documentation of a loan from Americore to James Biden.

Instead, Americore chose to provide a loan with no documentation based on the promise that James Biden could bring in funding from the Middle East, the outlet reported.

Fox previously filed a lawsuit against James Biden claiming he made "representations that his last name, 'Biden,' could 'open doors' and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections," National Review reported.

The suit claims Americore sent $600,000 to James and Sara Biden's personal bank accounts in total and demanded James Biden repay Americore the full amount. James Biden ultimately agreed to a settlement payment of $350,000.

"I think James Biden probably committed just many crimes as Hunter Biden. The only reason we don't know about James Biden is he didn't leave a laptop lying around," said Comer, referring to the first son's infamous computer that had been left at a Delaware repair shop.

"At the end of the day, this example with Americore Health sure looks like securities fraud." [source]

The plot thickens more with the Briben crime family.

Colo. Supreme Court Disqualifies Trump; Campaign Hits Dem-Inspired Ruling

From News Max.com (Dec. 19):

Former President Donald Trump cannot appear on the ballot in Colorado in next year's presidential election due to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters, the state's top court ruled Tuesday in a historic judgment that is likely to find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 4-3 ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court makes Trump the first presidential candidate in U.S. history to be deemed ineligible for the White House under a rarely used provision of the U.S. Constitution that bars officials who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.

That provoked a strongly worded attack on the ruling from the Trump 2024 campaign:

"Unsurprisingly, the all-Democrat appointed Colorado Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump, supporting a Soros-funded, left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden by removing President Trump’s name from the ballot and eliminating the rights of Colorado voters to vote for the candidate of their choice."

The court concluded that the U.S. Constitution bars the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024 from appearing on the ballot because of his role instigating violence against the U.S. government.

"We do not reach these conclusions lightly," the majority justices wrote. "We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."

The Colorado court said the ruling is stayed until Jan. 4, 2024, to allow for appeals.

One of the dissenting justices, Carlos Samour, said in a lengthy opinion that a lawsuit is not a fair mechanism for determining Trump’s eligibility for the ballot because it deprives him of his right to due process, noting that a jury has not convicted him of insurrection.

“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past - dare I say, engaged in insurrection - there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” Samour said.

The ruling applies only to the state's March 5 Republican primary, but its conclusion would likely also affect Trump’s status for the Nov. 5 general election. Nonpartisan U.S. election forecasters view Colorado as safely Democratic, meaning that President Joe Biden will likely carry the state regardless of Trump's fate.

The case was brought by a group of Colorado voters, aided by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who argued that Trump should be disqualified for inciting his supporters to attack the Capitol in a failed attempt to obstruct the transfer of presidential power to Biden after the 2020 election.

In its statement, Trump's campaign vowed a swift appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, expressing optimism it would speedily rule against an "un-American lawsuit.'

It said: "Democrat Party leaders are in a state of paranoia over the growing, dominant lead President Trump has amassed in the polls. They have lost faith in the failed Biden presidency and are now doing everything they can to stop the American voters from throwing them out of office next November. The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits.”

The decision is a victory for advocacy groups and anti-Trump voters who have mounted several similar legal challenges to Trump’s candidacy under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War.

The decision reverses a ruling by a lower court judge who found Trump engaged in insurrection by inciting his supporters to violence, but, as president, Trump was not an “officer of the United States” who could be disqualified under the amendment.

A lawyer for Trump argued that the riot at the Capitol was not serious enough to qualify as an insurrection and that Trump’s remarks to his supporters in Washington that day were protected by his right to free speech. The lawyer contended that courts do not have the authority to order Trump removed from the ballot.

Advocates have hoped to use the case to boost a wider disqualification effort and potentially put the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees.

"The court's decision today affirms what our clients alleged in this lawsuit: that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist who disqualified himself from office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment based on his role in the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and that Secretary Griswold must keep him off of Colorado’s primary ballot. It is not only historic and justified, but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country," said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. [source]

Bogus ruling. Definitely election interference. If Colorado supreme court can do this to Trump, it can do this to any republican presidential candidate they deem not worthy to be on the ballot. Or any other candidate they deem a threat to Briben’s reelection. Just ask RFK Jr. So, much for saving democracy which the Left never really cared for anyway even though they say they do.

And the justices that didn't want to be known for voting for this ruling are cowards.

I hope the Supreme Court overrules this injustice unanimously.

Other articles on the matter:

• The Big BUT in Colorado's Trump Election Decision
• COLORADO BARS TRUMP FROM THE BALLOT [UPDATED]
• Colorado GOP to Change to Caucus System, Ditch Primary If Trump Kept Off Ballot
• Totalitarian Ruling
• Victor Davis Hanson on Colorado Supreme Court Trump Ballot Ruling: ‘Does the Left See Where it is Taking the Country?’
• Maine Secretary of State Removes Trump From 2024 Ballot